The Truth About Rape

Well, rape isn’t only about violence. It encompasses violence, sex, as well as violation. It’s a tremendously destructive (mentally) act. That’s why their are hotlines. Personally, I think I would rather a professional psychiatrist deal with a rape victim than someone who might not have the qualifications.

That’s not to say those other acts (stabbings, muggings) don’t require any treatment; I know some people who have fallen victim to violent acts and have sought out psychological treatment in the form of psychiatrists.

I agree that prostitution will seek to mitigate the ‘necessity’ (to the degree that this is rationalized, or allowed to be rationalized) to violate consent in regard to sex. This does not address the desire to violate consent itself, and as such, even a prostitute can be raped by a John if certain variables present themselves.

Then you have the issue of whether a John beats the prostitute while having sex, working non-consensual behavior into the interaction regardless of the effort to alleviate these conditions with which the feeling of need for non-consent thrives.

-Justhink

If consent can only be achieved through deception, then sex is about rape IMO. I’m incidentally arguing this point in another thread started by Bricker.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=141447

Imagine people running sex through e-bay!! ROFL

"Hi, this is me, I’m so and so years old and am looking for disease and abuse free sex. I have only had x number partners(s) and sex (x) number times. I am disease free (submits certification from an online medical association that determines the accuracy of these reports for this process) minimum bid is $300.00

-Justhink

When comparing victimization surveys (like the National Crime Victimization Survey) to official law enforcement data (like the Uniform Crime Report), the number of unreported rapes and assaults exceeds those that have been reported to the authorities. Therefore rape is determined to be an underreported crime.

The general point I’d bring up in regards to the OP, is that sex probably does need to be commodified eventually. While this dynamic doesn’t address the underlying lack of philosophical standardization, it does create a standardization which collapses a plethora of other abuses that surround sexuality.

In this ‘bizaare’ e-bay scenario, people would be divided into catagories based on physical qualities (cute, petite, big equipment) (cute, petite, average equipment) – even these are generalizaions, yet it wouldn’t require much to really develop very specified catagories that resulted in only a slight physical variation. The degree to which a person in a certain catagory opens up their acceptable catagories that they will take an offer from, determines how desperate they are and/or how much money they can and/or will yield in this process. Some individuals may not even set an opening bid, in effect letting someone from a specified catagory choose them, free of charge. Of course, shipping costs would be negotiated beforehand =)

-Justhink

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by cuauhtemoc *
**If it were about sexual release, they wouldn’t do that. They’d spank it like everyone else. Therefore rape is about power, not sex.

I think the claim is that they want sexual release with a woman and not themselves. So I do not think your “therefore” stands up.

At this point I’m not even sure what "the source of rape . . . " or “rape is about . . .” even means; they become slogans and not statements of fact.

Feminists clearly wanted never to have to hear a rape victim questioned about what she wore or whether she was a fast woman or whether she hung out too late at night or whether she flirted with a strange man – all questions that might be relevant if the putative rapist claimed that his motive was simply over-agressive courtship of a woman who had given him reason to think she was sexually accessible. There is clearly more than a grain of truth to the male tendency to take such a signal of female sexual availability and run with it (or even to delude himself as to such signal), though in most cases it’s not plausible that even the most ardent swain misunderstands beyond the first few rebuffed overtures. The solution women’s advocates chose was to deem inquiry into any such subjects strictly off limits. They could have done this on the grounds that public policy simply does not favor allowing a defendant to point to his lust, and the victim’s supposed inducement of it, as relevant evidence exculpatory as to his sex crime; this policy might make sense because most of us are able to control our lust short of rape, thus a lust/she-induced-lust defense will simply not be deemed exculpatory. Instead, they took the somewhat more hamfisted approach of denying that such material (i.e., any evidence of the victim’s sexual history or other evidence suggestive of the defendant’s lust being provoked by her) had any evidentiary relevance at all (at least several of the rape shield laws explicitly recite this as fact, IIRC). “Rape Is A Crime Solely Of Violence” works as a sociological/legal/criminological “fact” to bolster this approach.

So maybe it’s part of a legal fiction, but since we can most agree that having the Central Park Jogger rapist acquitted based on a claim that he wouldn’t have raped the girl if only she hadn’t been wearing such short shorts (even if that’s factually true) is not a good thing. The real problem with Rape=Violence Only dogma (and there are indeed activists who state it that way, dwelling on such things as the fact that many rapists supposedly do not complete the act/are impotent, thus “proving” that sex has nothing to do with it) didn’t come about, I think, until activists also started advocating vociferously against the “epidemic” of “acquaintance rape.”

Having won their point on rape=violent crime and must be taken seriously/punished, they may have gone a bridge too far in then advocating a policy that would vastly expand the pool of people eligible for such punishment, to a point that clearly would suck in “rapists” who couldn’t reasonably be considered “violent” in anything remotely like the way that the Central Park rapist was a violent criminal. Activists go crazy when someone distinguishes between C. Park style “real rape” (which almost everyone takes seriously and wants to punish) and the confused events that can take place (and that usually do not involve serious overt physical violence) when overagressive men try to take advantage of female acquaintances/dates. That alcohol is usually involved doesn’t excuse caddish behavior, but the point is that while a man’s forcing his attentions on a woman who really doesn’t want it is no doubt caddish, no doubt a violation of her rights, no doubt may involve some degree of physical force (at a minimum, sort of lying on top of her) – it’s not necessarily “violent” and – from the cad’s perspective – it’s not only, or even principally, “about” violence – especially when he’s drunk and thinks that she “really wants it but is playing coy” (which, in real life . . . sometimes is true, and sometimes is completely not true – sorry it’s not all black and white). For him, it’s about getting some action. Or so he’ll claim. And conviction for crime, in most countries, usually requires both a bad act and a bad motive, so it is not necessarily irrelevant for him to explain his motive.

By bringing to bear on this dorm room fiasco the punitive/criminological broad brush that they successfully (and probably beneficially) won in the “real rape” context, where rape is, if not only “about” violence, sufficiently so to justify sweeping aside the other relevant but non-exculpatory (i.e., lust related) facts, anti-rape activists do run the risk of applying the brush to a situation that is not so clearcut, which is when people get frustrated and start questioning the Rape=Violence mantra.

Of course all of the wealthy individuals could buy up all the lease contracts; in effect equalizing wealth distribution throughout the population!! Paying 50,000,000 females ~ $300 per day or more or less for a year adds up to a lot of money! =_)

-Justhink

Of course all of the wealthy individuals could buy up all the lease contracts; in effect equalizing wealth distribution throughout the population!! Paying 50,000,000 females ~ $300 per day or more or less for a year adds up to a lot of money! =_)

Then maybe money won’t be such a big deal. Or maybe I’m just dreaming…

-Justhink

IF rape is about ‘sex’ mainly and not about violence, domination, and a whole host of other things vs. sexual gratification, then that presumes that the rapist is unable to achieve sexual gratification consensually.

which suggests that having a prostitute handy wouldn’t prevent rape.

IF rape is about ‘sex’ mainly and not about violence, domination, and a whole host of other things vs. sexual gratification, then that presumes that the rapist is unable to achieve sexual gratification consensually.

which suggests that having a prostitute handy wouldn’t prevent rape.

Rape is about the issue of sex and consent. If it can be shown that sex cannot be reasonably given or recieved without violating the consent issue, then it makes sense to abstract the whole process as a public commodity; as the underlying deception necessary to recieve sex will degrade the society itself.

I consider the necessity of demanding personality evidence, when claiming that it is not the case - a demand for rape. This means If I don’t rape people, I don’t have sex. which in my case translates into I won’t rape people, therefor I won’t have sex.

It touches upon the subtlety of how irrelevant personality evidence is to the actual capacity to truly enjoy not only the process of sex, but also the human being(s) that are involved in the process. I personally find the concept of personality evidence to be mis-applied and mis-appropriated in regards to sexual selection. The other alternative, is to blast people with the philosophic routines which standardize the transparency process in regards to consent and potency. Do you really think the media or anyone in a position of potency is going to be interested in doing this? Ummm… I doubt it, which is kinda the point.

-Justhink

I believe that it is much more criminal and much more insulting to have prostitution be illegal than it is to abstract the commodity.
Particularly in this day and age; where capital itself is so centrated, and is using this law to create the stress for people to not accept that which is considered an inherent value and ‘birthright’. It also provides those with more concentration of power to effectively not pay a cent for the very aspects that enslave people to the system they have corrupted.
Now you have the issue of consent rendered pre-emptively, which collapses the hollows of the mind in which people can delude themselves into a state of uninherent superiority in a general sense. People can now focus upon the more tangible.

Commodifying sex also provides more people with more opportunity and less fuss. Some lady out in Florida may ‘purchase’ me for a week. I have exposure to new people and new environments and she foots the bill. It allows for a more transparent and logical application of valuation, rather then using untangibles and creating a barrier which directly interferes with how others would prefer to place their personal ‘vote’.

The ability for some lady in Florida to say, “yeah, this person looks valuable to me for this fundamental aspect” bypasses the use of counter-intelligence to mitigate inherent value and sustain systems of corruption. If she kills me in Florida, well, my next door neighbor can kill me too - at least someone knows where people are going (online intermediary).

-Justhink

Well, in my case, thank god for counselling, hotlines and therapy because

1.) My parents to this day don’t believe me.

2.) I was held down and raped by a man who swore every day that he loved me more than anything in the world and would do anything to make me happy, however, when I asked him to not make me have sex with him I was attacked. That sort of thing was hard to reconcile at 17.

which leads to

  1. Muggers are usually strangers that (I assume) you can some how just write off as assholes. And while they may rough you up and take your wallet, you can get a new one. My virginity and self respect cannot be replaced.

I needed counselling. YMMV

Very true. If all that was required to eradicate lust was a quick bout of “spanking it”, then there wouldn’t be an enormous porn industry. Most pornography, many sex toys (notably Real Dolls), and the like are marketed on the premise of being at least quasi-real. (“Real” in the sense that it’s supposed to be a visual or physical aid to help the individual imagine a real woman more vividly, not in the sense that pornos are actually plausible. As a former pizza delivery boy, I can attest to the fact that pornos are far from realisitic. :slight_smile: )

Pardon my obtuseness, but doesn’t that suggest exactly the opposite? If the rapist is unable to achieve “sexual gratification consensually”, and that is the reason he’s raping, wouldn’t it stand to reason that giving him a prostitute would prevent him from raping?

Jeff

Because there’s not a history of mugging being referred to as “worse than death”, or a of mugging victims being thought to have “asked for it”, or of a mugging victim needing an eyewitness to prove that it was, in fact, a mugging and that the victim didn’t voluntarily give the money away. People don’t think that a mugging victim gave the money away and then had second thoughts, not do they think that the mugger shouldn’t be punished because the victim was flashing his money. But those attitudes still exist in regard to rape, especially so-called date rapes (more accurately called acquaintance rapes), which can only make it harder to recover emotionally from a rape.

That would be fine, except for a few things:

  • Not all rapists are acquainted with their victims.

  • Not all victims are virgins.

  • Being a mugging victim can be damaging to one’s self respect. It instills a sense of powerlessness and fear, and a general feeling that you’re inept at protecting yourself. Granted, not to anywhere near the same extent as with rape (I assume), but it can still be a very relevent factor.

I’m guessing that non-virgins who are raped by total strangers are still encouraged to seek counselling, whereas I can’t imagine many people suggesting that a mugging victim should do the same.

Jeff

Point of fact, even our current regime of law and mindset, which is ostensibly based, at least largely, on Rape=Crime Of Violence, doesn’t really believe the slogan. Already here we’ve heard references to “violation,” mental trauma, self-respect, virginity – all terms that sound very apt for describing something sex-related, but not so apt for mere violence. And that’s because we – society, individuals, everyone – just plain think that sex is different from other things, and that bad things related to sex are worse than bad things not related to sex. Some feminists complained about the feminine mystique – society’s supposed tendency to place women and the feminine on a higher plane of “refinement.” But our current views and laws on rape very much still reflect a feminine mystique, and one that operates in benefit of women, and is not being challenged by feminists; that is, our current laws clearly single out rape as a Very Bad Thing, and provide for serious punishment/social exclusion for engaging in it, not because of its violent nature, but because of its sexual nature. Rape laws simply wouldn’t be as harsh as they are if we didn’t all or most of us have a lingering heightened respect for female virtue/honor/virginity, a lingering sense that women are more in need of protection than men, a lingering sense that women are somehow ineffably “marked” by the stigma/violation of rape in a way that somehow doesn’t happen with other crimes, even violent ones. So women are benefiting from a pretty archaic, quasi-chivalric set of motivations shared by much of society and the law, and I don’t hear feminists complaining, because the overall result (discouraging rape) is quite desireable to most of us. That these chivalric notions, which generally favor women’s anti-rape interests, come with some baggage --i.e., the chevalier’s impulse to make sure that the pure maiden really was pure before galloping off to avenge her deflowering–should not be surprising.

Imagine a world in which rape really is treated as simply a crime of violence. Joe and Mary go to a frat party Friday night. Joe drinks ten beers. So does Mary. Joe’s judgment gets a bit impaired. Mary likewise. Joe approaches big fratboy no. 1 and tells him that the Dekes suck, dude. Mary goes up to fratboy no. 2 and accepts his offer to join him in his room. Fratboy no. 1 punches Joe in the nose, blacks his eye, and gives him a fat lip and chipped tooth. Meanwhile, fratboy no. 2, crazed with lust, um, I mean violence, locks the door behind Mary, carries her to the bed, lies on top of her, and has sex with her – she’s pinned down by his weight while it’s going on, but otherwise, he doesn’t physically strike or manhandle her. At the end of the night, Joe has been struck multiple times and suffered multiple physical injuries that may scar him for awhile. Mary was a bit squashed and may not have enjoyed the sensation of being penetrated, but otherwise, she’s untouched and has no physical scars. In the alternative Rape=Violence world, who gets the more severe prison sentence and merits harsher social condemnation? Clearly, fratboy no. 1; his victim is worse off physically, has suffered more tangible effects of the violence, and has had greater, more prolonged, and more intensive violation of his right to be free from physical harm. Legally, I’d expect fratboy no. 1 is up against multiple counts of aggravated battery, whereas fratboy 2 is on the hook for false imprisonment and one simple battery (I say simple because it didn’t cause lasting physical harm). “Ah, but rape would be aggravated battery, because that kind of intrusion on your physical space is particularly violating.” Right, but that’s true only if some parts of our body are even less okay for strangers to touch/assail than others – which wouldn’t be true in a rape=violence only world, but eminently would be true in a rape=crime of sex/shame/violation world.

Like the one we live in. In which fratboy 1 would, likely as not, not even be charged, or if charged, might well be treated as just a drunken brawler and not a violent predator and fratboy no. 2 would stand a good chance of facing serious rape charges. Because . . . rape is just different from “crimes of violence” despite the coincidence that rape sometimes, though not always, involves a degree of physical violence. I don’t see society changing its viewpoint on this “just different” approach, which is clearly tied to the sexual nature of rape, and I don’t think even feminists, no matter what awkwardly expressed “rape=violence” credo some of them may be stuck voicing, would really want this change to occur.

Other ways rape is a different crime for the victim:

  1. There still is some level of guilt that attaches, ‘why were you out alone/wearing that skimpy dress’ sort of thing (not claiming it’s as bad as it used to be when rape victims had to prove that they ‘fought back’, tho that can still certainly happen)

  2. I’ve not heard of a mugging victim’s spouse having changes in their reaction to the victim. a rape victim’s spouse - it certainly has happened.

  3. with a mugging, you’ve lost property, perhaps gotten physically hurt as well. with rape, you’ve gotten physically hurt, and need to be concerned over diseases etc.

  4. Sexual contact, to some people, is a very private and personal area of their lives. (vs. say, walking across the street, going shopping etc.). To have a major negative event like being a crime victim, happen in an area of one’s life where one prefers privacy, can be devestating in multiple layers. One has the event, which is bad enough, then one may have to discuss it w/the police, later on, in court, to one’s doctor etc. Then, there’s the issues of people casually in one’s life - one’s coworkers, neighbors etc. “how are you” becomes a loaded question. “why weren’t you at work yesterday” another one.

Marcus Aurelius thought bad acts occasioned by giving in to the desire for pleasure were worse than those occasioned by anger/violent passion (no cite at the moment). His theory being that the former were more self-indulgent and decadent, the latter more like isolated outbursts.

On this theory, the rapist motivated by lust is, in fact, a more damnable fiend than the one motivated by violence alone.

Again, an acknowledgement that sex crimes are different from other crimes, and aren’t merely violence/power driven (nor are their consequences the same as with violent crimes generically).

Ultimately I think we’ll find we’re going round in circles and that no one here is really questioning cole’s (bluntly stated) OP argument that Rape=Power or Rape=Violence Only are, at best, oversimplifications. And cole was not creating a strawman; the absolutist “Rape has nothing to do with sex, only violence and power” position is still being widely voiced:

http://www.ci.mesa.az.us/police/rape.htm
http://www.anu.edu.au/facilities/security/unisafe/men_rape.html
http://www.thurrock-community.org.uk/sericc/myths_facts.htm
http://www.ncpc.org/10yth3.htm

Exemplary quote: “[Rape] is an attempt to control and degrade using sex as a weapon.”

Exemplary quote no. 2 (from http://www.thurrock-community.org.u…myths_facts.htm ):

“Any sexual attention that is unwanted, forced or pressured is a form of rape.”

Suggests that cole’s OP premise no. 3, which at first struck me as a bit overstated except as applied to the Dworkin fringe, was also not a strawman.

Now that I properly enlightened, I’m going down the pub to make a citizen’s arrest. Or 50.